If there is one topic India’s political pundits love to shoot their mouths of on,

it’s Kashmir. Everyone and his son in-law, it seems, has an opinion; and the views
range from bleeding heart to blatantly belligerent. It’s another matter that afte
r more than 20 years of pontificating, the “experts” are no closer to finding a solu
tion to the Kashmir “problem” than when they started.
Whenever there is an impasse, the obvious impulse is to cover up one’s incompetenc
e by looking for a scapegoat. In the case of Kashmir, Pakistan is an obvious can
didate. No one doubts that Pakistan has gone out of its way to ferment trouble i
n Kashmir. However, the vacillating response of successive Indian governments ha
s certainly not helped matters. India cannot talk tough with its neighbour one d
ay; and then say there is no alternative to peace talks. When will we learn that
appeasing a bully only makes him more aggressive and scornful?
There is a general perception that India is being subtly coerced to make nice wi
th Pakistan by the US. This is probably true, but if India thinks giving in to A
merica’s wishes is going to tilt the superpower to its side in its dealings with P
akistan, we are deluding ourselves. The only reason the US wants calm along the
Line of Control (LoC) is that it can then try to persuade Pakistan to divert mor
e of its armed forces to its Western border to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I
f India is serious about bringing Pakistan to the peace talks table, it should m
ake a lot of noise, including a fair bit of sabre rattling along the LoC. This w
ould compel Pakistan to pull out forces from the fight against the militants; an
d rattle America so much that it would put immense pressure on Pakistan to stop
needling India and make peace.
The latest buzz word in the Kashmir valley is azadi. By opposing this idea so ve
hemently, the Indian government is actually playing into the hands of the separa
tists and their brainwashed followers. India’s strong opposition makes it easy for
Geelani and company to convince their followers that it is cause worth agitatin
g for. They have made it the Holy Grail for the citizens of Srinagar and surroun
ding areas. If at all the separatists have thought through the implications of t
otal independence, they are not revealing much to their followers. Think about i
t. First of all, a fully independent Kashmir would lose Jammu and Ladakh, since
it is highly improbable that those regions would want to separate from India. Mo
reover, an independent Kashmir restricted to the Valley is simply not viable. It
would be completely land locked, with dicey communications during the winter mo
nths; it has no heavy industry to speak of; and without the hundreds of crores o
f Rupees that India pumps into the state every year, it would be virtually bankr
upt within a year.
So what if India was to wash its hands off the Kashmir valley and let the inhabi
tants stew in their own juice? My presumption is that it would not take the Kash
miris long to face the painful reality that an azad Kashmir is not the paradise
they were promised. Once the economy collapsed and chronic unemployment became e
pidemic, they would probably plead to revert to the status quo ante; army or no
army. India could then negotiate re-annexation from a position of strength.
The counter argument to this scenario, of course, is that, once the Indian armed
forces withdrew, Pakistan would quickly move in and occupy the valley. Even if
that were to happen, the implication for India would be that the de-facto LoC wo
uld shift from its present position to the boundaries of the valley. It would no
t make India any more vulnerable. Moreover, although conventional wisdom dictate
s a swift Pakistan takeover, I am not convinced that this is inevitable. My reas
oning is this. Once India vacated the Kashmir valley, there would no longer be a
ny cause for conflict between the two neighbours; and I don’t think peace is in th
e scheme of things of the Pakistan army and the ISI. These two institutions thri
ve; nay survive, on fermenting and sustaining hatred of India. It is what makes
the people of Pakistan so amenable to frequent military dictatorship. Remove the
threat and the Pakistani population could seriously consider the benefits of a
functioning democracy. No, a lasting peace would not suit the military at all.
I have also heard the argument that granting azadi, or even full autonomy to Kas
hmir, would encourage similar demands from India’s North-Eastern states, where the
ethnicity of the local population is closer to Chinese than Indian. However, th
e situation is somewhat different here. True, some elements in Bangla Desh are i
nstigating trouble in these regions, but it is nowhere as intense or widespread
as along India’s Western border. Besides, Bangla Desh is too feeble – economically a
nd militarily to pose any real threat to India. Moreover, I don’t believe the Maoi
sts and Naxalites – who are essentially guerrilla fighters – would want to take on t
he onerous responsibility of governing a country of their own.
I am aware that the above suggestions will be deemed too radical by many; and th
ere is no guarantee that they would work. Well, conventional wisdom hasn’t got us
very far after 20 years of trying. So maybe a bold new initiative is the need of
the hour.